SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"State lawmakers only decided to enforce net neutrality at the local level after ISPs convinced the FCC to abandon its nationwide oversight of net neutrality," noted Jon Brodkin of Ars Technica. (Photo: Political Dig)
Net Neutrality Defenders Issue Alert as Telecom Giants Ready to 'Sic Army of Expensive Lawyers' on States
Open internet defenders argued the threat underscores the importance of enshrining net neutrality protections in federal law.
Mar 27, 2018
Underscoring the importance of protecting net neutrality at the national level rather than relying entirely on state-led efforts, Verizon, AT&T, and other massive telecom companies are threatening to "aggressively challenge" states and municipalities that attempt to establish their own open internet protections in the wake of the GOP-controlled FCC's vote to repeal net neutrality last December.
\u201cDozens of states are fighting for #NetNeutrality, but Verizon and AT&T are about to sic an army of expensive lawyers on them. That's why we need to find #OneMoreVote to pass the CRA and restore protections for all. https://t.co/r0BqFtNvii\u201d— @team@fightforthefuture.org on Mastodon (@@team@fightforthefuture.org on Mastodon) 1522170516
In a blog post on Monday, Jonathan Spalter of USTelecom--a lobbying group chaired by executives of large telecom companies--argued against state-level net neutrality laws on the grounds that the U.S. needs "one consistent set of national and permanent consumer protections."
"State lawmakers only decided to enforce net neutrality at the local level after ISPs convinced the FCC to abandon its nationwide oversight of net neutrality."
--Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica
But as Ars Technica's Jon Brodkin notes, Spalter conveniently ignores the fact that "the U.S. did have a nationwide net neutrality standard that prohibited ISPs from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing Internet content in exchange for payment," and "that standard was bitterly opposed by USTelecom and other broadband industry groups."
After unsuccessfully attempting to overturn the 2015 net neutrality protections in court, "USTelecom eventually got its way after Republican Ajit Pai was appointed FCC chairman by President Trump; Pai led a 3-2 vote to kill the rules," Brodkin adds. "State lawmakers only decided to enforce net neutrality at the local level after ISPs convinced the FCC to abandon its nationwide oversight of net neutrality."
While open internet advocates have celebrated recent moves by states like California, Washington, and more than a dozen others to protect net neutrality from Pai's repeal plan, they have also warned that these efforts are ultimately insufficient to shield the web from corporate manipulation. In order to do so, advocates and experts argue, Congress must step in an pass a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to overturn Pai's new rules.
In the Senate, the CRA needs just one more Republican vote to pass. The resolution then must make it through the House, where it will need 218 votes. The deadline for Congress to pass the CRA is April 23.
"Thankfully states like California are stepping up, but Congress needs to follow suit and support the CRA to restore protections for all," Evan Greer, campaign director at Fight for the Future, said in a statement earlier this month.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Underscoring the importance of protecting net neutrality at the national level rather than relying entirely on state-led efforts, Verizon, AT&T, and other massive telecom companies are threatening to "aggressively challenge" states and municipalities that attempt to establish their own open internet protections in the wake of the GOP-controlled FCC's vote to repeal net neutrality last December.
\u201cDozens of states are fighting for #NetNeutrality, but Verizon and AT&T are about to sic an army of expensive lawyers on them. That's why we need to find #OneMoreVote to pass the CRA and restore protections for all. https://t.co/r0BqFtNvii\u201d— @team@fightforthefuture.org on Mastodon (@@team@fightforthefuture.org on Mastodon) 1522170516
In a blog post on Monday, Jonathan Spalter of USTelecom--a lobbying group chaired by executives of large telecom companies--argued against state-level net neutrality laws on the grounds that the U.S. needs "one consistent set of national and permanent consumer protections."
"State lawmakers only decided to enforce net neutrality at the local level after ISPs convinced the FCC to abandon its nationwide oversight of net neutrality."
--Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica
But as Ars Technica's Jon Brodkin notes, Spalter conveniently ignores the fact that "the U.S. did have a nationwide net neutrality standard that prohibited ISPs from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing Internet content in exchange for payment," and "that standard was bitterly opposed by USTelecom and other broadband industry groups."
After unsuccessfully attempting to overturn the 2015 net neutrality protections in court, "USTelecom eventually got its way after Republican Ajit Pai was appointed FCC chairman by President Trump; Pai led a 3-2 vote to kill the rules," Brodkin adds. "State lawmakers only decided to enforce net neutrality at the local level after ISPs convinced the FCC to abandon its nationwide oversight of net neutrality."
While open internet advocates have celebrated recent moves by states like California, Washington, and more than a dozen others to protect net neutrality from Pai's repeal plan, they have also warned that these efforts are ultimately insufficient to shield the web from corporate manipulation. In order to do so, advocates and experts argue, Congress must step in an pass a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to overturn Pai's new rules.
In the Senate, the CRA needs just one more Republican vote to pass. The resolution then must make it through the House, where it will need 218 votes. The deadline for Congress to pass the CRA is April 23.
"Thankfully states like California are stepping up, but Congress needs to follow suit and support the CRA to restore protections for all," Evan Greer, campaign director at Fight for the Future, said in a statement earlier this month.
Underscoring the importance of protecting net neutrality at the national level rather than relying entirely on state-led efforts, Verizon, AT&T, and other massive telecom companies are threatening to "aggressively challenge" states and municipalities that attempt to establish their own open internet protections in the wake of the GOP-controlled FCC's vote to repeal net neutrality last December.
\u201cDozens of states are fighting for #NetNeutrality, but Verizon and AT&T are about to sic an army of expensive lawyers on them. That's why we need to find #OneMoreVote to pass the CRA and restore protections for all. https://t.co/r0BqFtNvii\u201d— @team@fightforthefuture.org on Mastodon (@@team@fightforthefuture.org on Mastodon) 1522170516
In a blog post on Monday, Jonathan Spalter of USTelecom--a lobbying group chaired by executives of large telecom companies--argued against state-level net neutrality laws on the grounds that the U.S. needs "one consistent set of national and permanent consumer protections."
"State lawmakers only decided to enforce net neutrality at the local level after ISPs convinced the FCC to abandon its nationwide oversight of net neutrality."
--Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica
But as Ars Technica's Jon Brodkin notes, Spalter conveniently ignores the fact that "the U.S. did have a nationwide net neutrality standard that prohibited ISPs from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing Internet content in exchange for payment," and "that standard was bitterly opposed by USTelecom and other broadband industry groups."
After unsuccessfully attempting to overturn the 2015 net neutrality protections in court, "USTelecom eventually got its way after Republican Ajit Pai was appointed FCC chairman by President Trump; Pai led a 3-2 vote to kill the rules," Brodkin adds. "State lawmakers only decided to enforce net neutrality at the local level after ISPs convinced the FCC to abandon its nationwide oversight of net neutrality."
While open internet advocates have celebrated recent moves by states like California, Washington, and more than a dozen others to protect net neutrality from Pai's repeal plan, they have also warned that these efforts are ultimately insufficient to shield the web from corporate manipulation. In order to do so, advocates and experts argue, Congress must step in an pass a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to overturn Pai's new rules.
In the Senate, the CRA needs just one more Republican vote to pass. The resolution then must make it through the House, where it will need 218 votes. The deadline for Congress to pass the CRA is April 23.
"Thankfully states like California are stepping up, but Congress needs to follow suit and support the CRA to restore protections for all," Evan Greer, campaign director at Fight for the Future, said in a statement earlier this month.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.